The phrase “silent majority”, referring to those who do not make their views known other than through the imperfect prism of the their ballots, represents a concept that has been used by both parties but is most closely associated with the Republicans. The phrase goes back a lot farther than that, a couple of millennia in fact, as a euphemism for the dead. That’s similar to what G. K. Chesterton referred to as “the democracy of the dead” which is to say tradition.

In a piece at The Hill Douglas MacKinnon wonders if we are not about to see the “silent majority”, in a somewhat different usage determine the outcome of the midterm elections:

For decades, we have all heard of the “silent majority” in American politics. Today, for incredibly practical reasons, it may have morphed into the “secret majority.”

And why wouldn’t it? Back when the “silent majority” was coined as a term, whatever political opinion you might choose to express — generally more Republican, conservative and common sense from that demographic — you were not going to be fired from a job; you wouldn’t have your business picketed and shut down; you were not going to have anarchists and protesters march into your neighborhood; your children wouldn’t be targeted because of your views; you were not going to get viciously harassed on social media; you were not going to have your grade in college altered or be expelled from an institution of higher learning; you were not going to have your life turned upside down for simply having a different political or faith-based opinion in that version of the United States of America. We were indeed a nation conceived to ensure “liberty and justice for all.”

The America of 2022 is not the America of the past. The cancel-culture crowd has flipped that script.

Suddenly, the “secret majority” has come to the realization that, if they hope to live in peace and provide for themselves and their families, they must constantly remind themselves that they no longer have the liberty to speak their minds and the scales of justice have been hijacked by far-left politicians, district attorneys and advocates who push for open borders, the defunding of the police, identity politics and the rights of violent criminals over the victims.

Many from the “secret majority” believe that this woke, anti-liberty and anti-free speech movement has taken over the power centers of big business, Big Tech, the media, universities, hospitals, science centers, and the most influential unions in the country — in other words, institutions that either employ them or exert power over their quality of life decisions.

Knowing that, why would they ever speak out or voice a differing opinion? The fact is, many do not. They have shut down.

I don’t think his interpretation is 100% correct. I think that polling is broken because few enough people are willing to answer the pollsters’ questions honestly that they’re inherently biased. Those who respond are those willing to give the pollsters the answers they think the pollsters want, whether it’s because they align with their own, because they’re willing to lie, or because they’re mischievous.

However, we’ll know pretty soon—in just over a week. If the Republicans gain narrow majorities in the House and Senate, which is what I expect, I think we can reasonably speculate that if there is a “secret majority”, they’re still secret.

For all of the laments and warnings that democracy is on the ropes in the United States, there are relatively few declarations of what the speakers and writers mean when they say “democracy”. Here’s what I mean. For me it has several components.

One of those components is summed up in the Latin phrase Vox populi lex suprema—the will (literally “voice”) of the people is the supreme law. It is related but not identical to something written by the Roman orator and statesman Cicero: Salus populi lex suprema (the welfare or good of the people is the supreme law).

The second component is the protection of certain rights: the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to own property, and others. A government of delimited powers is implicit in this component. The people are limited in what they can expect from the government by the law.

The final component is a system of enforced laws under a common law framework. In a common law framework the written law (“black letter law”) and precedent both play a role. Unless narrowly construed a civil code system in which the law always applies to every situation but it is the judge’s role to determine how is a formula for tyranny.

I think that altogether too much weight is being placed on the mechanics of voting these days. Saddam Hussein would be delighted. Voting alone is not enough to ensure democracy. There’s more to it than that. The candidates for whom you may vote, the legitimate casting of votes, and what happens after the voting takes place are all important as well.

It is in that last step that I think our system falls short. At the federal level the party leadership has entirely too much power. Representatives should feel bound by what their constituents want rather than what their party leaders demand. When the main role of elected representatives is to ratify the decisions of party leaders, I think that calling it a “democracy” is a stretch.

There are ways that could be remedied. We are in dire need of civil service reform. At the national level the Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader have entirely too much power. Any representative in the House or Senate should be able to propose legislation which is brought to the floor for a vote and any representative in the House or Senate should be able to propose amendments to legislation. Neither the House nor the Senate will reform on its own.

IMO a number of the thorniest issues would be resolved quite easily under a more democratic (in my terms) system. Most Americans think that a) the state has an interest in the life of the unborn; b) up to a certain point there are circumstances under which abortion should be legal; and c) it is completely legitimate for state to ban late term abortions. Neither political party takes that position. The Democratic position is that the state has no interest in the life of the unborn; the Republican position is that states should ban abortion.

Similarly, with immigration most Americans think that our borders should be significantly more controlled than they are at present but that immigration in considerable numbers should remain possible. Neither political party takes that position.

You might be interested in this report at the Center for American Progress, “Taking Migration Seriously: Real Solutions to Complex Challenges at the Border”. Here’s a snippet:

The Biden-Harris administration has proved committed to managing regional migration by tackling its root causes. Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing federal agencies to develop a comprehensive regional framework to address the root causes of migration, manage migration in the region, and strengthen the asylum system at the border. A few months later, in July 2021, the administration followed up on this order with a collaborative migration management strategy that focused on improving regional collaboration. The administration has also released a blueprint to address the root causes of irregular migration, with strategies to tackle insecurity, corruption, and violence in an effort to promote human rights in Central America.

Despite these efforts we presently have an unprecedented number of people crossing our southern border without permission, certainly at least 3 million last year considering both “encounters” and “getaways”. There’s an old observation that the way you know you have enough light in a reading room is if you can read there. By that standard the Biden Administration self-evidently isn’t doing enough.

A good place to start in looking for guidance would be the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the guiding legislation. Very few of those crossing the border are refugees by the standards defined in the law. Making an analogy with Cuba is fatuous because a) the circumstances today are different than they were 60 years ago and b) there was specific legislation addressing their status. If you want people from Venezuela, for example, to be automatically defined as refugees, the appropriate legislation should be enacted.

IMO the preponderance of the evidence suggests that most of those crossing our southern border are in fact economic migrants and, sadly, the evidence is quite clear that there is no great demand for people without a high school-level ability to speak, read, or write English. Increasing that population further injures those already in the bottom tier of the economy.

As I write this I’m watching Fredric March’s performance as Jekyll and Hyde in the 1931 film, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He won an Academy Award for his performance.

One thing leaps out at me about it. Hyde is not the way Stevenson described him. Stevenson had a single theme that recurs throughout his works: evil is more attractive than good. That’s why Jekyll, a very good man, is drawn to transform himself into Hyde again and again.

Who is the most interesting, attractive character in Treasure Island? It’s not Squire Trelawny or Dr. Livesey, the “good” characters. Obviously, Long John Silver. Similarly with Alan Breck in Kidnapped and James in The Master of Ballantrae. They’re not good people but they’re more interesting and attractive.

Hyde is not described as physically deformed but more subtly as having a sort of moral deformity. Maybe some day there will be a film adaptation which capture that aspect of the novel. Spencer Tracy’s Jekyll/Hyde comes closest. Too bad it’s such a lousy picture.

This is not a news blog. It’s an analysis blog but I thought the attack on Paul Pelosi worth remarking on.

I deplore all violence, particularly political violence, and the preponderance of the evidence suggests that’s ultimately what the attack was. Beyond that IMO all sides are rushing to judgment and we should wait before deciding much about the incident other than to wish Mr. Pelosi a speedy recovery.

Most of what’s being said beyond the bare fact of the attack is speculation. I’ll offer one of my own: cannabis psychosis. I believe it’s an increasingly serious problem and we’ll see more of it. It ain’t your grandpa’s weed anymore.

The perpetrator was clearly a nut, whatever his politics, motive, or circumstances.

You might want to take a look at this assessment of the emissions of electric vehicles at RealClearInvestigations.

My own view is

1. EVs are good niche vehicles but not workable for everyone based on present technology.
2. Hybrids are a better solution for more people and require the production of a lot fewer batteries.
3. We have very little basis for believing that the production of batteries can be scaled up high enough or fast enough for everyone to be driving only EVs.
4. The main effect of California and states that emulate California by banning the sale of new ICE vehicles will be to goose the market for used vehicles which is a perverse outcome.
5. The power distribution grid will not be able to handle everybody driving an EV for the foreseeable future.

Shorter: Elon Musk is a smart guy. Targeting people in the top 10% of income earners for his EV product was a good idea and Tesla appears to be moving back in that direction.

There’s a story here in Chicago which you may not have heard about which I think is instructive. A postal worker was abducted in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago but managed to escape before her abductor sexually assaulted her. Both the postal worker and the abductor had been in a convenience store just minutes before. The abductor left the store before the postal worker, entered the postal worker’s van (why was it left unlocked?), and then attacked the postal worker after she returned to her vehicle. Here’s how Matt Masterson reports what happened at WTTW:

Ramirez lunged at her, grabbing her sweatshirt, shirt and bra as she tried to escape, according to prosecutors.

The woman slipped out of that clothing and ran to a nearby auto body shop, where she was given a shirt and called 911. Responding officers allegedly located Ramirez driving the postal van near 20th and Pulaski, but after a 20-minute traffic pursuit, he was able to get away. That vehicle was later found abandoned in the 4300 block of West Marquette Road.

According to prosecutors, the postal worker was hospitalized and treated for high blood pressure and some abrasions around her neck.

The abductor has been apprehended. How?

Later that day, police released a still photo of Ramirez from inside the gas station asking for the community’s help in locating him.

On Sunday, two of Ramirez’s own family members “immediately recognized” him from that photo and contacted police, prosecutors said. A third relative also recognized Ramirez after seeing the same photo later that day, and later told police Ramirez had been wearing a vest this relative had given him a day prior, prosecutors said.

Ramirez was later located and arrested Monday.

Why is that instructive? Because the key element that led to Mr. Ramirez’s apprehension was that those who knew him informed police that he was the individual in the photograph they were circulating. Without that he might never have been apprehended.

My point here is that what makes crime a viable occupation is the complicity of the community in it. Although the cherubic pictures frequently published of individuals who have, for example, been killed by police may represent how his friends and family think of him, they may be a far cry from the present reality which in many cases is that the individual is a hardened professional criminal with dozens or even hundreds of prior offenses. It takes a certain amount of courage and, yes, resoluteness to turn in friends or family which is why it happens so rarely.

It also requires trust in law enforcement which is, sadly, too frequently a missing ingredient.

The table above was sampled from Joanne Jacobs’s post about the recent NAEP English and math test results for this year. Quoting another article she implores:

Tell parents the unpleasant truth about learning loss, writes Andrew Rotherham in a story on the state NAEP scores in the The 74. “The disaster and inequity of pandemic policies is now in clear focus,” he writes. Despite a few outliers — Department of Defense and Catholic schools — “it’s an across-the-board disaster for the United States.”

“Students already furthest from success in school were most impacted,” he writes. “Thirty-eight percent of eighth-graders are at a level in mathematics that leaves them functionally unprepared to fend for themselves in the world, let alone pursue success in various college and career opportunities.”

You may recall that at the time I pointed out two things. First, that the public schools serve two constituencies: students and their parents on the one hand and teachers and school staffs on the other. Second, that the needs of both constituencies could be satisfied by distinguishing between teachers who were at greater risk for contracting COVID-19 from those who weren’t. That flies in the face of long-standing union rules but needs must when the devil drives.

Well, it looks like the needs of one constituency completely overwhelmed that of the other and, as should not be surprising, the triumphant constituency was teachers and staffs. I am strongly reminded of Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions

It is not necessarily true that lost years of learning can be remediated. It has been well known for a century that there are center crucial periods in child development in which if certain skills are not learned they never will be.

We’re not just in competition with each other anymore. We’re in competition with everyone in the world. The students who’ve wasted a year will feel the gap keenly in their later lives.

From Merriam-Webster:

One of the hazards of complaining about the qualities of the opposing party’s candidates is that it increases the stakes for having qualified candidates yourself.

Paraphrasing one of my favorite political figures from the last century, we’re defining competency down.